DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Cloverfield (US - DVD R1)

Gabe saw it. It is a lion. A huge robotic lion, with a squid's face. Made of soda...

Feature

Young lovers Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and Beth (Odette Yustman) end their relationship when Rob scores a Vice Presidential job in Japan. Weeks later, Rob’s friends throw him a surprise party to celebrate his new job. Rob’s brother Jason (Mike Vogel) has been given the task of filming goodbye testimonials during the party, a job he quickly hands over to best friend Hud (T.J. Miller). When Beth shows up with a new beau the party turns sour, as do Rob’s spirits. While Jason and Hud attempt to console Rob something throws the Statue of Liberty’s head at them.

Cloverfield belongs on a pedestal in the annuals of classic exploitation cinema. It may’ve cost $25 million (which is still incredibly cheap by studio standards), and it may’ve been released in a couple thousand theatres to a final stateside ( edit to clarify: release weekend) total of $40 million, but it’s still a film that “attract[s] viewers by exciting their more prurient interests”. That’s the wikipedia definition, witch goes on to define the genre as “rely[ing] heavily on the lurid advertising of their content rather than the intrinsic quality of the film[s]”. If this doesn’t exemplify everything that makes Cloverfield special, I don’t know what does. What better thing to exploit then the western world’s ongoing fear of repeat terrorist attacks? If it’s good enough for Steven Spielberg it should be good enough for anyone, right?

The ‘relying on lurid advertising’ part is the part that makes Cloverfield a truly modern exploitation vehicle. The film’s producers, which include TV production superstar J.J. Abrams (I’m entirely unfamiliar with the man’s work, except Mission Impossible III), put together one of the most tantalizingly enigmatic as campaigns in recent history. Cloverfield sported no fewer then six fake titles, none of which were present on the original trailers that were mysteriously tacked onto Transformers with almost zero previous internet buzz. Post trailer release the net was plenty abuzz with even more mysterious viral promotional sites. Suddenly, what appeared rather obviously to be a monster movie by way of the Blair Witch Project was rumoured to be an adaptation of everything from H.P. Lovecraft to Voltron and the ‘Rampage’ video game series. The best William Castle ever managed was a buzzer in the seat.

Cloverfield is at its best when it’s manipulating us with images of massive destruction from a candid street level. I found myself genuinely nerve jangled during these combat photography by way of Youtube chase scenes. For several glorious moments I was legitimately transferred to a horrifyingly real world where terrifying monsters stomp on innocent, terrorist frazzled New Yorkers. As a horror fan I’ve found it harder and harder to find movies that really frighten me and Abrams and director Matt Reeves found a successful means to bring out my basic real life fears by supernatural means. During these moments I knew what it was to be an A-bomb distressed Japanese man watching the original Godzilla for the first time.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t help but be entirely torn out of my frightful state of suspended disbelief every time the film stopped to develop its plot and characters. Upon a first viewing (in theatres) I assumed that I just didn’t like the characters, and that the plot depended on too many coincidences and dubious character choices. These are still unavoidable problems, but a second look has led me to a slight change in reasoning. I now think that a character-driven feature simply can’t sustain such authentic realism. The only way it could work is for the film to be strictly plot-driven, following the army’s battle with the monster from start to finish through various media film sources, as if one were flipping through channels as the event happened live (just like it happened on September 11th). Something tells me Paramount wouldn’t have given up 25 million dollars for that project.

The problem with Abrams and co.’s concept, which is a clever one, is that it requires much more suspension of disbelief then most of us are capable of. This is the real world, and real world rules keep applying. A second viewing on a smaller screen only allows these issues to scream louder. There aren’t a lot of films that attempt the ‘found footage’ approach, and every single one, though often successful on a visceral level first viewing, can fail when nit-picked apart. Some audiences simply aren’t willing to go along with high concept for high concept’s sake.

The most successful ‘found footage’ movie is still the granddaddy, Cannibal Holocaust (though Ruggero Deodato was inspired by the often faked and sold as real Mondo films of the 1960s, and the first third doesn’t really work at all). Cloverfield’s biggest hurdle of disbelief is Hud’s reasoning for continued documentation—why wouldn’t he just drop the camera and run? Cannibal Holocaust (and to a lesser extent the Cannibal Holocaust inspired Blair Witch Project) doesn’t have this problem because the protagonists are documentarians that are actually creating the mayhem. But I suppose a film from the point of view of the Cloverfield monster’s giant camcorder would be more funny then frightening. Still, it’s hard to deny Deodato’s film had influence on Abrams (see below).

Video

The ‘real world’ video of Cloverfield is not supposed to be high definition (though technically it was filmed as such), so this standard definition disc is more then acceptable. The movie looks kind of like crap throughout, but it’s been specially crafted to look like crap, so more power to it. The lighting is dull, the framing is awkward, the grain is heavy, the focus is bad, etcetera and so forth. The colours are often quite bright, with surprisingly minimal blooming (unless of course intended). Through the grainy and dulled compositions the compression is surprisingly minimal. This overall dingy look actually helps sell the digital monster effects, and I imagine the eventual Blu-ray release will be perhaps a bit too sharp in these areas.

Audio

Cloverfield’s audio is one of those things that can pull you out of the film if you think too hardly about it. Some digital camcorders come with stereo microphones, but none of them come with 5.1 microphones (mostly because there is no such thing). But this is really an unnecessary nit-pick, because the ferocity of a large-scale monster attack wouldn’t work as well in mono. The trade off for intense, multi-channel soundtrack is a lack of music (mostly, there’s some music-like ambient noise). Without the unrealistic 5.1 track we wouldn’t get the impressive punch of the creature’s early attacks, or the visceral impact of the army attacks. The vast majority of the film is centre-channel friendly, and most of the stereo and surround channel work is devoted to light ambiance.

Extras

This disc isn’t without its fun extras, but overall I’m a little surprised at the general lack of volume. I know I’ve been making claims of double dips for review after review, but this disc really strikes me as a stopgap to a better release. Clue number one comes with director Matt Reeves’ solo commentary track.

Reeves’ track is, technically speaking, very good, fulfilling many questions about the pre-production process, the filming process, and some of the post-production process, and his personal views and attachments to the film, but the absence of Abrams is suspicious to me (perhaps he was too busy with his new Star Trek project). Perhaps I’m just a little double-dip paranoid on this one. Regardless, I learned quite a bit about the making of Cloverfield from Reeves’ calm and collected commentary, specifically about the early production (though he doesn’t cop to ripping off The Descent’s best scare). Some fans may be disappointed by the lack of detailed description of the film’s monster and his (her?) origin (another possible clue to a future special edition release).

The deleted scenes (four) and alternate endings (two) will probably disappoint most of the film’s biggest fans as well. All the deleted scenes take place during the film’s almost unbearable opening party. There’s no new monster footage or alternate and more violent versions of some of the lice attacks. The alternate endings both come to the same conclusion as the final film (no proof of survival, or death, or monster getting away, or monster being quashed), but vary slightly in length and location on Coney Island. All scenes feature a Reeves commentary track.

Three decent featurettes fill out a couple of facts Reeves may have missed during his commentary. ‘Document 01.18.08: The Making of Cloverfield’ is your basic who, where, when, and why of the production. Abrams and the actors are given a shot at explaining themselves. It’s not too deep, and it isn’t too long, but it fulfils a few of our informative needs. ‘Cloverfield Visual Effects’ is more like it, delving deeper into the film’s fleeting magic. It’s a credit to Reeves and the effects crew how hard it is to even notice some of the film’s more special slight of hand. ‘I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge’ is a brief look more specifically at the design of the monster, though it does literally repeat the other commentaries.

‘Clover Fun’ is the blooper reel, which mostly consists of actor T.J. Miller making people laugh, but also includes some destruction related follies. A few previews, an Easter egg (don't get excited), and a weblink end the extras.

Overall

Cloverfield should’ve been released in 2007 so critics could’ve called it the year of the monster or something (well, had The Host or The Mist been the hits they deserved to be). Had any of these films, each special in their own way, made any genuine impact we might have seen an intelligent resurgence of thinly allegorical monster films. Unfortunately, it’s looking like this was just a flash in the city stomping pan. This DVD doesn’t roar loud enough for me to assume it’s even close to the last word on the film, but the price seems right at most outlets and we should enjoy our modern monster movies while we can.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Hey guys, when you get the DVD...watch the end shot again..when the couple is at the beach. Look at the time stamp at the bottom of the screen & look at the sailboat in the water in the background....what's that coming out of the sky?????? I am a screening projectionist at a movie theatre...almost everybody missed that scene...watch it carefully...

Yes yes yes! "In Bruges" is THE best movie of 2008 so far. I like "Cloverfield", but it wasn't the most fun I've had at the cinema in years. Need to think about that for a while. "Hairspray" comes to mind. Hate musicals, but damn did that make me smile for nearly two hours.

Quote: To me when you enter the theatre, your mindset must change immediately and begin the process of realizing your in another world and a completely different reality that doesn't exist.

So all films, just by being films, are in a reality that does not exist? Hardly. Not if it has a current, normal reality setting. The only thing that was complete fantasy in "Cloverfield" was the monster. But it existed in a very real and normal world.

And again, by this crackpot logic you could have, with complete validity, people growing wings and flying away from the monster...after all "your in another world and a completely different reality that doesn't exist".

Dude, save your breath. This is a topic that cannot be argued successfully. There is logical arguement, and there is Cloverfield. Never the two shall meet.

Horrible movie. Yeah, 'real world' rules and 'documentary style' do not apply in this c**pfest. So I never felt the menace. It as all about the sobbing and screaming. Booooring. Blair Witch hits the mark. Holocaust is all about the hype, though it's very hard-hitting.

Perhaps you should read the review a bit more carefully. Gabe cites a couple of films that tackle similar territory as Cloverfield (The Blair Witch Project and Cannibal Holocaust) so it's clearly not a case of disliking this film because it's "different".

Quote: To me when you enter the theatre, your mindset must change immediately and begin the process of realizing your in another world and a completely different reality that doesn't exist.

So all films, just by being films, are in a reality that does not exist? Hardly. Not if it has a current, normal reality setting. The only thing that was complete fantasy in "Cloverfield" was the monster. But it existed in a very real and normal world.

And again, by this crackpot logic you could have, with complete validity, people growing wings and flying away from the monster...after all "your in another world and a completely different reality that doesn't exist".

Gabe Powers wrote: poland626 wrote: Um, am I the ONLY one who noticed that the pic after the HUD one was NOT featured in the film?!?! What's that from? I'm talking about that bloody face on the ground picture Did you read the review?

(hint, the paragraph above the pics)

I read the paragraph and I still don't remember that picture. Maybe he's the same way.

Looks like some guy with strawberry syrup on his face, lying down with some naked girls in the background. Doesn't it look a party with like bare legs standing behind a douchebag who lied down too early so his pals vandalized his cranium?

This movie to me was probably the best Monster Movie to be released since ALIENS. Sure, we can or cannot suspend belief depending on the film but we're really just talking about a "movie". To me when you enter the theatre, your mindset must change immediately and begin the process of realizing your in another world and a completely different reality that doesn't exist. For me, CLOVERFIELD was amazing because there was that remote possibility that this could happen. How? Who knows. But what got me the best was the essence of urgency and desperation that was created. Much like ALIENS, you know that doom was right around the corner but had no idea how or when exactly it was going to happen. It's funny because I had huge issues with I AM LEGEND because of unrealistic realistic situations and had major trouble suspending belief for that film. Yet, I had no problems with CLOVERFIELD. Maybe I need to take another look at I AM LEGEND. I guess the difference was that in CF, New York was under siege and there was no getting out but in IAL the main character had ample time and opportunity to leave the disaster and facilitate change.

Simply put, CLOVERFIELD was a modern day GODZILLA. Something seemingly emerges from the ocean and proceeds to take out a major without anyone being able to do anything about it. CLOVERFIELD basically took the same film, updated it and put all of those phobias and fears that have been buried deep in our psyche and exploited them completely. Actually seeing friends die, being trapped, the whole 9/11 New York in ruins reality and total positioning oneself in a position of having little or no control really does a number on someone especially if they go into a theater suspending belief.

I simply cannot wait for anything CLOVERFIELD that comes out in the future. Can't get enough. Just like anything regarding the ALIEN family of films. Bring Em on.

poland626 wrote: Um, am I the ONLY one who noticed that the pic after the HUD one was NOT featured in the film?!?! What's that from? I'm talking about that bloody face on the ground picture Did you read the review?

Would I be interested in keeeping the camera running if things like that happened like in CLOVERFIELD? Yes. Would I get out? Yes. Would I venture into the city's heart to save a loved one? yes. Would I travel the subway tunnels? no. So I do find the story somewhat believeable even though I hated a few of the characters in it.

To see how well this sort of thing can be done just look at Rec, it's better than this and Diary of the Dead. This was just entertaining, no big deal. I've said it before and i'll say it again i absolutely would not go back for some tart with a big f**k off monster on the loose.

I liked the concept of this movie. The special effects and cinematography were quite good. It was the numbskull screenplay that knocked it down several pegs. Which is unfortunate. It could have been a classic.

Cloverfield was so boring except for a single scene of the film which I must give credit (building hopping). In the end I expected more scares and thrills especially since this released after The Mist which was insane. Cloverfield could've used less boring characters no monster movie should ever contain and more building jumps and monster sneaking. Remember the end where the monster stops stomping and creeps up behind the camera and shouts BOO!! Best scene. Bad movie.

I thought this movie was great and I can't wait to get it but I wonder how it would fare on my small tv. I never found the characters that annoying and while I didn't really relate to them I felt like I was part of their group/ like I was right there when I saw this in theatres. Coming out of the theatre I did want more though. Maybe not a sequel but more of an explanation in to whatever happened. Still, I like it even if I don't know too many people who did.

Too many people went into this expecting an arthouse drama...rather than what it was, a great popcorn monster flick. So does it matter that some of the acting is bad and the shaky cam gets tedious at times...not all (my opinion anyways).

However I agree with the reviewer, this one reeks of double dip. So I am actually going to hold off and wait for the Blu release.

Quote: The camera then was directed to the sky, and without even realizing it, they captured the second plane hitting the second Tower.

From there on, it was a 9/11 documentary The camera captured people’s reaction

Hmmm...yes. But would they have still carried on filming if another plane appeared, grew fangs and proceeded to zoom at them down the street?

Quote: If your loved one is at the other side of town. When a giant “something” attacks..... or, bringing us back to the real world, a terrorist attack..... would you stay put, leave the area completely, or try everything you can to reach your loved one?

Seemingly...you'd actually take the time and concentration to film everything for YouTube.

And no, you can't change 'something' (as in a great big monster) to a terrorist. As we would not be utterly into the realm of mind blowing sci-fi if the threat was a terrorist and as such we would act and react completely differently. Not a comparison.

With this film, you already have a plot at hand – a homemade recording of a party. Then it became something more, when “something” giant, crashes the party. We see this group of people, reacting in a VERY believable way. And anyone says different, is lying. This group is like you, me, your friends, my friends. And the idea here is what YOU WOULD DO, in this situation.

So this is where some of the critics parted ways in the movie. If your loved one – girlfriend – boyfriend – wife – husband – whatever, is at the other side of town. When a giant “something”, or, bringing us back to the real world, a terrorist attack/school shooting occurs nearby, would you stay put, leave the area completely, or try everything you can to reach your loved one? Like one of those, “ choose your own adventure” books; the question sticks to many people’s perceptive of this film. And this is where I connected to the movie. Sure, it may not be the “smartest” idea. But at a time where chaos occurs, confusion arises, and emotions is at an all time high – you go with your heart and your gut. If death is truly nearby, you want to be with the person you love.

And also - right after 9/11, there was a documentary shown on TV called, 9/11. It was about two filmmakers, filming their own documentary about firefighters in New York. They picked one rookie firefighter, and were telling his story. It just so happens, they were filming that day, near the Towers, and before they could blink – they saw a plane heading into the first Tower. The camera then was directed to the sky, and without even realizing it, they captured the second plane hitting the second Tower.

From there on, it was a 9/11 documentary – but even more than that, it was an actual account. The camera captured people’s reaction, as things happened that day. “OH MY GOD, WHAT THE F**K, HOLY S**T”, is heard crystal clear. People were standing at the actual sights, and taking pictures/video taping, as things occurred. Speculation of what was happening, were spread among the folks that were experiencing the event. If you want a true 9/11 motion picture, there you have – nothing’s more real and raw than the real deal. You can find it on DVD. As a matter of fact, it’s a coincidence that it’s a Paramount title.

I think the writers/producers studied that documentary, more so, than Godzilla/Blair Witch.

LOL! try telling that to people! All they scream back is "It's a freakin MONSTER movie", as if that somehow destroys the rest of basic reality that the monster is in.

"BWP" was c**p in its own right, but the fact they kept filming despite supposedly being in abject terror and fleeing for their lives is the same absurd idea as "Cloverfield" and "Dairy of the Dead"...And I HATE IT.

"Cannibal Holocaust" is the only film to ever pull this set-up off. And that is because the leader of the film crew has already been shown to be a megalomaniac AND...importantly...PSYCHOTIC. That this evil little freak would film his friends being butchered, forgetting them and even his own almost certain demise, to get that scoop which will live on after him, is validated by not only the entire reason they are there but also by the crucial fact that the guy is utterly, MURDEROUSLY, psychotic!

None of which applies to any of the characters in any of these other films which, as such, in no way justify the fact that anyone would carry on filming (and film good enough to screen in a f**king multi-plex no less!) while all this was going on.

Not only that...But something like war, hurricanes or even cannibals are known reality. There is nothing utterly mind-blowing about these happenings in their basic set-up. A f**king great monster attacking a city IS an utterly mind-blowing event though (as is a flaming Zombie apocalypse) so that even the weak, weak, oh so weak excuse of "Well people film wars and winds at great risk don't they" (risk yes, actual death about to happen any second, no) does not work.

Blofeld wrote: Give people something different and all they do is moan. Cripes!

Perhaps you should read the review a bit more carefully. Gabe cites a couple of films that tackle similar territory as Cloverfield (The Blair Witch Project and Cannibal Holocaust) so it's clearly not a case of disliking this film because it's "different".

The film, by its very nature, had plot hole potential due to its setting (the question as to why Hud continues to record footage) which Gabe mentions above.

I wouldn't call this a particularly "negative" review and 6/10 isn't a bad score. If you must; divide it in two and convert it to stars. While a lot of critics waxed lyrical about this movie earlier this year, I can't see it being remembered in twenty years as a five star classic.

Gabe, I like the movie. You missed the other 10 easter eggs (which I could only find by loading it into Window Media player on the computer. The film did make $80 million stateside (and $46 million in the first three days).

LOL!! Look at the wagons circling because someone dissed,(and half-heartedly at that), this particular movie. Like what you like, people, just don't pretend that everyone should like the same thing. Peace.

rebel-scum wrote: ...I'm gonna stop, because it's not worth the effort to tear this nonsense apart,(I don't think I heard ONE New York accent)...

What, do you think everyone from the city speaks in a 'New Yawk' dialect? Trust me, I have enough yuppie friends and relatives living in Manhattan (the Village, mostly) to tell you that if you're gonna complain about their lack of stereotypical accents apart, you don't know s**t about the breath of people living in NY.

As for the flick, I had a fantastic time. The audience I saw this with was TERRIBLE though (they actually booed at screen when it 'beeped' in the beginning, and showed color bars on the screen; It's FILM you f**kin douchebag morons!). But besides that, it scared the c**p out of me, it left me with a sick vertigo feeling, and I really appreciated the new approach to a monster movie. And I really don't get all this venom being spewed at the characters. They seemed perfectly average to me, with their actions not entirely outside of reason, so what's the big deal?

Usually I would retaliate on people who dis a really good movie,but I didnt read the comments above,nor do I intend to on this movie! Regardless of what people say this is one of the best movies of 08!!!

I saw this movie in the theaters, and I absolutely loved it. True, the characters got a little grating after a while, but the excitement was kept up to a point where I stopped noticing. It's a good suspense film; the obvious comparisons to "Blair Witch" and "The Descent" seem to make the argument for "Cloverfield" being in good company, as I thought all three were great flicks.

I loved this movie. I thought it was smart and thrilling. I liked the idea and I liked the charecters. I like movies where you have to watch them over again and research them on the internet and read articles to find out more about what the movie is out. I like participating in the process of watching a movie. I felt like Richard Kelly's "Southland Tales" was like this, with all the graphic novels and articles to read to understand it more. Well, I loved "Colverfield" and I'm totally adding it to my collection.

A terrible, terrible movie. It follows a worrying trend in both U.S. movies and tv shows to have characters that are so annoying,(Dirty Sexy Money for example), that it is almost impossible to feel sympathy or whatever for them. The main character of Cloverfield, Rob is such an idiot that I couldn't fathom ANYONE wanting to follow him on this ill-fated journey. The guy supposedly operating the camera was also a jerk, and the whole dialogue explaining why he doesn't just drop the camera...I'm gonna stop, because it's not worth the effort to tear this nonsense apart,(I don't think I heard ONE New York accent), but fans of the movie shouldn't be disappointed in the quality of this disc and that's the most important thing.